Welcome to the best KC Chiefs site on the internet. You can view any post as a visitor, but you are required to register before you can post. Click the register link above, it only takes 30 seconds to start chatting with Chiefs fans from all over the world! Enjoy your stay!

The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

0

Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.

Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.

Four years ago in his acceptance speech for the Democrat nominee for President, then Senator Obama laid out his plan for THIS year's campaign.

"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.

And you know what? It's worked before, because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping and settle for what you already know."

VP candidate Paul Ryan recently used Obama's own words against him. "Let me quote President Obama four years ago: 'If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.' Ladies and gentleman, that is exactly what Barack Obama is doing today," Ryan said. "In fact, every president since the Great Depression who asked Americans to send them into a second term could say that you are better off today than you were four years ago, except for Jimmy Carter and for President Barack Obama."

Obama has no record to run on. He can make promises as to what he will do in his NEXT term, but what good is that? He didn't keep the promises he made LAST term. Don't get fooled again, America.

The DNC starts tonight. Get ready for the mudslinging to begin.

***Official Chiefs Crowd Game Thread Starter***

This space is reserved for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with MatthewsChiefs. (Whoever THAT is!)

I think the problems we have is due mainly to the Democrats and the Republicans. I've been on both sides of the isle in my lifetime and I gotta say that both parties have let us down, so...yeah, I'm pretty jaded with the whole political process.

So, with Citizen United, where a corporation, or union, is granted the speech rights of an individual, who decides what the.voice of the smaller investor should say?

I didn't respond to this post because I don't undertand what you are asking. But you asked it again, so I'll give it a shot.

Citizens United is not a "corporation or union," but they are entitled to the same free speech rights.

"Citizens United Foundation (CUF) is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt non-profit dedicated to informing the American people about public policy issues which relate to traditional American values: strong national defense, Constitutionally limited government, free market economics, belief in God and Judeo-Christian values, and the recognition of the family as the basic social unit of our society. CUF does not involve itself in any political campaigns, lobbying, or other activities." (source: CitizensUnited.com)

Originally Posted by chief31

I mean, as the small investor, who is making the decision for what my political opinion is?

You are, by choosing who you invest with, but how does this relate to CUF? They are a non-profit foundation, not a publicly held corporation. The whole point of investing is to generate a profit on your investment. You can donate to CUF, but why would you do that if you disagreed with their beliefs and goals?

Originally Posted by chief31

Why is that right of speech up to the corporate head instead of individual?

It's not. McDonalds or Pepsico can run political ads or donate to candidates as they choose, but they have to answer to their shareholders as well as how public perception will affect their business. If you (the collective "you") disagree with Chick-Fil-A President Dan Cathy's support for "traditional marriage" you don't have to invest in his company or buy his sandwiches. But you, as an individual have the same free speech rights corporations, foundations, unions and political action committees do.

Originally Posted by chief31

Oh sure, one.could say that I choose when I choose to invest. But that is not quite my choice of speech.

Then speak out! You may not have the money to produce political ads or buy time on TV, but you can still make you voice heard here, on facebook, at town hall meetings, newspaper letters to the editor, etc. Citizens United can't stop you.

Originally Posted by chief31

Not to mention, the information of what voice a corporation will choose for me is no longer available. The corporation gets to decide what my voice is, and they don't even have to let me know what my voice is.

Since when does CUF (or any organization/corporation) speak specifally for YOU? And why should they?

Originally Posted by chief31

Citizens United was a 100% politically motivated decision, unless the majority (all Republican) failed to take into account the voice of individuals, which was the clear intent of the 1st. I am not about to believe that they just so happen to be so stupid, coincidentally by party line.

I don't understand this either. The Supreme Court justices are not members of any political party. They are appointed, not elected. They DO lean liberal or conservative (or moderate) and naturally their personal beliefs will affect how they interpret the meaning or intent of the Constitution with respect to constitutional law. Is it any surprise that conservative justices tend to make pro-conservative rulings and vice-versa?

"stupid?" Please explain the stupid comment.

Originally Posted by chief31

By the way, did a bi-partisan decision knock down most of the Arizona immigration law? And what about the eve so.unconstitutional healthcare law?

???

No, the Supreme Court did.

Originally Posted by chief31

Let me guess, even though the law clearly states that it is a penalty, not a tax, and The SCOTUS passed the law as written....... Somehow, it magically became a tax just because Justice Roberts says he passed it because it is a tax, even though he voted for it as written, a penalty, not a tax?

SCOTUS didn't pass the law. They ruled that it was constitutional and Roberts didn't "vote for it," He is one of the 5 judges supporting the majority opinion, but you are right. It was a terrible ruling. Obviously Roberts WANTED the plan to be constitutional, but it's not unless you call the penalty a "tax." But even then it's a stretch. Taxing only people who DON'T buy private insurance is much different than, say, STATE governments taxing license plate tags.

Originally Posted by chief31

Sorry. But it is not a tax. It is a penalty. Roberts' statement did not rewrite the law.

Roberts' statement is nothing more than commentary.

On this we agree. It's not a tax and therefore should have been ruled unconstitutional.

***Official Chiefs Crowd Game Thread Starter***

This space is reserved for something that has nothing whatsoever to do with MatthewsChiefs. (Whoever THAT is!)

I think it's a mistake to make the attacks on our embassy's in the middle east more about some ridiculous, low budget, idiotic film that no one in their right minds would pay a dime to go see and less about the radical extremist choosing 9/11 to try and affect US foreign policy. Where is all this concern for religious "feelings" and sensitivity when Christians and Jews are berated, criticized and offended in an almost daily barrage of media attacks?

I think it's a mistake to make the attacks on our embassy's in the middle east more about some ridiculous, low budget, idiotic film that no one in their right minds would pay a dime to go see and less about the radical extremist choosing 9/11 to try and affect US foreign policy. Where is all this concern for religious "feelings" and sensitivity when Christians and Jews are berated, criticized and offended in an almost daily barrage of media attacks?

Just my two cents.

The USA is the height of civilized society on this planet. Even the poor here are not living as a great deal of the people in those countries do.

They live in poverty, and poverty means they have less to lose, and are generally going to be more invested in their emotions, and religion.

Poverty breeds all kind of dysfunction, including hostility.

If you backtrack through history and find where Christianity was less civilized, and less controlled by government/society, and the same type of behavior is evident among Christians. And when you trace back to eras ofChristian control you will see where Christianity has been even worse than anything we see today.

Not to make excuses for horrible behavior, but I do maintain that the religion is not to blame for a small minority making a lot of noise. Most Muslims despise having Islam represented in that way.

Keep in mind, Adolph Hitler was a Christian who claimed to he doing "God's work".

Just as Christians don't like to be represented by those who commit attrocities, the same can be said if any religion, or other group.

I think the movie was just a way of getting more people involved in the protest, so the violent intentions were protected by a larger mob.

And, while the movie was a sick idea when we are trying to cool the hatred between us, I do not suggest that such stupidity be banned.

And I do agree with your overall statement that the movie should be far less of a concern. But then, I don't see anybody really doing that.